<p>I think that we need to separate the arguments that have been made here. The first is that Rutgers “has made a decision to cut off options for a certain segment of its population of the diverse state it is mandated to serve.” But in a world of limited and diminishing resources, somebody has to lose. I am not bothered by a decision to save $800,000 by cutting off support for varsity activities that a) involve only a very small portion of the student body and b) are generally populated by the more affluent part of the student body. (Note that all of these students can still attend Rutgers; they simply will not have their varsity activities subsidized)</p>
<p>So the real question is, what should be cut. I stand by the view that the sports that are being cut provide few benefits for the rest of the student body. Frankly, I don’t think that, in general, the student body cares one way or another about swimming, crew and fencing. Moreover, notwithstanding the skill and dedication required to participate at a D1 level in these sports, I don’t think that anyone is particularly surprised when the participants are also good students. It is a matter of socioeconomic class.</p>
<p>By the way, I can’t resist. My S is close to one of those football players who is also an outstanding student. The boy attends–WEST VIRGINIA.</p>